A lot of open source software is written by people working for corporations. Red Hat may have started out as a plucky co-op but it's now part of IBM. MySQL is written primarily by Oracle. The fact that the source is open doesn't mean it's all volunteer work.

That doesn't mean it wasn't a massive transfer of wealth, just that for a lot of it people were paid a fraction of the wealth they created rather than none at all.

Sidenote: Here's a good article about how software developers can wage class warfare. Some tips are: Don't help other people learn things, never write documentation, and make your code as opaque as possible so your boss doesn't get anything from you for free.

Here is a list of the volunteers of Linux 6.1: https://lwn.net/Articles/915435/

Huawai is the biggest contributor, followed by intel, google, amd... Most volunteers are all on a payroll. Companies working together on an industry standard is still noble, though.

Sorry but this is such a bad take.

Linux is free to install, free to use and most importantly free to learn

What is the alternative? How many people who are now in great jobs would have been unable to teach themselves the skills they need if IIS or another proprietary technology had won the server market instead.

Something had to fill the space, would you rather it was a technology that created barriers for people with the fewest advantages in life?

(Also as others have said, a lot of OSS development is funded by companies. Linux in particular being a great example)

On the other side, Free and Open Source Software leveled the playing field for software development by quite a lot. Before FOSS you had proprietary databases, proprietary OSes, proprietary web servers, etc, at every level of the chain. Without FOSS Internet Explorer and Microsoft Office would rule the roost. Without FOSS smart phones might've taken years longer, and have far less choices. Without FOSS the web would be drastically different. Without FOSS development would be harder to break into, and anything you tried to produce would involve 15 different licensing fees.

"Bricks are used in most corporate structures... Brick-layers are boot-licking capitalist class-betrayers!"

What a stupid take...

So, don't mistake this as me telling you you're totally wrong, because you definitely do have a point and it gets under my skin too (that's why I believe licenses like AGPL and, dare I say, SSPL should be used), but many of these companies actively contribute back to the open source software they're using.

That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

That may be true, but there is (usually) also an upside. Any fixes and modifications must be shared back. Thank you copyleft licenses. Thank you GPL.

I'd rather see it as having Internet, the backbone of a technology we profit a lot from, runs on free softwares.

That companies use it to make profit is the same as those using anything to make profit.

Companies are also using paper and pencils, desks and seats and all sort of things.

Here's an article all about how 'open source' coopted and recuperated 'free software' movement to the benefit of corps.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230703044529/https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler

The enduring emptiness of our technology debates has one main cause, and his name is Tim O’Reilly. The founder and CEO of O’Reilly Media, a seemingly omnipotent publisher of technology books and a tireless organizer of trendy conferences, O’Reilly is one of the most influential thinkers in Silicon Valley. Entire fields of thought—from computing to management theory to public administration—have already surrendered to his buzzwordophilia, but O’Reilly keeps pressing on. Over the past fifteen years, he has given us such gems of analytical precision as “open source,” “Web 2.0,” “government as a platform,” and “architecture of participation.” O’Reilly doesn’t coin all of his favorite expressions, but he promotes them with religious zeal and enviable perseverance. While Washington prides itself on Frank Luntz, the Republican strategist who rebranded “global warming” as “climate change” and turned “estate tax” into “death tax,” Silicon Valley has found its own Frank Luntz in Tim O’Reilly.

On the other hand, I'd wager that any given person who uses Linux daily at work is far more likely to own a stake in their company than the average worker.

My Linux laptop is also literally my means of production, which I own. Karl Marx never predicted this.

They are also who mostly finances the development of very many Foss products. So still better than closed source, as small companies and the general public can also use those products.

Tell me how the math works out on this one.

Because last I checked, Microsoft, Apple, Oracle and Google still are the biggest companies and their wealth rests primarily on closed source software.

I would think for the "largest" transfer of wealth, we would be able to pinpoint some poor exploited geeks coding software juxtaposed against some rich fat cats making money off of it.

But Linus Torvalds doesn't seem poor and IBM/Red Hat, while rich, is much smaller than Microsoft.

This is why I don't agree with the GPL. It's perfect in every way, except for the allowance to utilize the licensed work or derivatives thereof for monetary gain. Fuck that shit. You got it for free, you give it away for free.

Those of us who work in tech need to have a serious reckoning about our contributions to this sort of dynamic and the sort of social environment it incentivizes us to gravitate towards, maintain, and create.

There also needs to be some discussion of class in tech and how the bull pen tech support grunts are going to have very different incentives from the senior technician making 7 figures on top of mad stock options.

Don't worry, it's like like anybody uses 10+ year old OS versions which have been EOL'd for over 5 years. Definitely not a concern since Linux is FOSS and you don't need costly contracts to keep up to date with the most basic of security updates.

https://www.shodan.io/search?query=linux+2.6.32-696.el6.x86_64

Software is like a flame. Sharing it by lighting another fire doesn't take away from the original flame.

Isn't that why FOSS survives as a model and is encouraged so much, though, so there is something to enclose and charge bullshit fees for once you fork it?

Capitalism is when money.

This is absolutely not unpopular. Free software buys more porsches to incompetent business schools alumni than windows...

Well known, sad and frustrating

It was never unintentional. It benefits is all to have them use it, too.

A lot of the clients I do work for in the MSP I work in, this is half truth. Yes, a sizeable portion of servers are running a Linux based hypervisor, to serve windows VM's.

TIHI.